Looking for some guidance from Catholic theologians or people well familiar with Catholic theology. Is is okay to say, that someone **"must always wear their brown scapular"** in order to achieve some desired spiritual end? Even if this requirement is not on its own, but as part of a number of other well established practices? For example, "In order to bring the Triumph of Immaculate Heart, one must pray the rosary, consecrate one's life to Mary .... and **always wear their brown scapular** as a sign of this consecration"

I have a simple question: why does God not live with us directly? It seems He is revealing Himself to us only indirectly, as opposed to being with us as Someone we could reach just like another person. He did it once, why not do it in perpetuity? Answers from Trinitarian Christians, please.

I am seeking answers from Protestant Trinitarians in regard to the statement in Genesis 1:27 that humanity was made in the image and the likeness of God ; and whether this actually refers to the revelation of Deity in humanity, since Adam was merely a 'figure of him that was to come', Romans 5:14. In Hebrews 1:3 we read that the Son is the 'express image' [KJV] of God and in Colossians 1:15 that he is the 'image of the invisible God' [KJV again]. But the writer to the Hebrews uses the word χαρακτηρ, *character*, and Paul uses the word εικων, *eikon*. (These are two very different words in Greek.) I wondered if the Greek of the New Testament is conveying to us the same concept as Genesis, 'image' and 'likeness'. Though I must confess that I am not certain which Greek word would convey which concept. Only that two concepts are definitely being expressed and the KJV has translated both as 'image'. If the first account of creation in Genesis (the 'Elohim' account) is a spiritual account of creation as such, and therefore of creation as it will be in the future, a new creation ; then are we seeing in Genesis a precursor to Hebrews/Colossians, the conceptual expression of the Son of God, as yet to come in humanity ? And does, therefore, the twin expressions of Hebrews and Colossians mirror the concept being conveyed in the beginning of creation ? ------------------------------------ I felt that, although I am mentioning Greek wording, the question would be unsuitable for SE-BH as it is not an hermeneutic question, but is rather a theological enquiry ; and I do seek the input of Protestant Trinitarians in regard to it. --------------------------- All references are to the KJV and the Received Text. ------------------------------------------- EDIT after comment : >. . . *and we beheld the glory of him glory as of only begotten alongside father* Literal, John 1:14, there being no article. As John sees Divine glory (expressed in humanity) so I am suggesting that 'image' and 'likeness' 'of God' are not human characteristics but are, nevertheless, being *expressed in humanity*. It is the image and likeness of Deity that is being expressed by the Son (both Colossians and Hebrews refer to 'the Son' - not 'Jesus' or 'the Christ'). >την δοξαν αυτου δοξαν ως μονογενους παρα πατρος John 1:14 TR - Beza, Stephanus, Elzevir and Scrivener are all identical.

Looking for a church community for me and my child, young adult college age. So far trying to decide between ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and UCC (United Church of Christ). What are the differences between these two communities?

The Catholic Church seems to [accept most mainline Protestant baptism as valid](https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf) , but does not recognise the baptisms of non-Trinitarian denominations. There are a few Protestant (and Trinitarian) denominations also in the invalid list however, one of which is the Plymouth Brethren. This is surprising to me. Are there some theological problems in the Plymouth Brethren's beliefs, either about the Trinity or in the baptism formula they use, that cause their baptisms to be considered invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

Why as moderate Christian goes we pray hands together, yet before Christ crucified we prayed hands apart?

I just can't wrap my head around this. I was raised Christian, but haven't been one for decades. I still kept going to church though long after my conversion just to remain undercover. I remember an evangelical preacher, who let's say wasn't exactly the most tolerant or moral person (this man was an open wife beater, and his entire congregation was 100% fine with this to give you a idea). He thought the idea of a "cultural Christian" was absurd. Loo-loo as he was, I see no reason to disagree with him. Christianity is centered around belief. Christians define themselves as people who "believe in Jesus", believe in God, the Exodus, etc. I even had one person one *Reddit* once asked me if I kept to the tenets of Christianity, and then proceeded to list nothing but beliefs on history and how the universe works. Not one thing about morality or behavior. Yes, Christians *do* have behaviors and practices, but they all come from how they believe the universe works. They evangelize because they believe non-Christians all go to hell. They campaign against the LGBT movement because they believe the Bible says it's wrong. They oppose the teaching of evolution because it contradicts the narrative given in Genesis (though the 'old earth' theory itself also poses some logic problems). If you don't believe any of this stuff, I don't see how you can be a "Christian". What, are you going to be a homophobe and go around trying to convert people to Christianity when you're not a Christian yourself? Are you going to deny evolution when you have no practical reason to do so? Are you going to continue to believe in the historicity of the Exodus despite evidence to the contrary (granted, I myself kept believing that the Exodus was a historical event until rather recently, minus the supernatural bits of course). Based on my own upbringing, I don't see how you can be a "cultural Christian". Christianity hinges too much on how you believe the universe works. If you ditch all that, how can you be a Christian? That makes no sense. What else is there to Christianity outside of its beliefs? What, are you going to be unlike other atheists and appreciate Christian art rather than blasting it simply because it was made by Christians? That's the only thing I can imagine: a "Christian" taste in aesthetics. Although I don't see why a person like that would still call themselves a "Christian" in any other capacity.

As a result of the crucifixion of Jesus, all who truly accept Christ will receive salvation and have their sins washed away. But how is it just that the guilty person not be held accountable for the sin they committed?

In Genesis 2:17 God said to Adam: > "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat > of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." > (KJV) Why did knowledge of good and evil result in death? Why is that kind of knowledge so deadly? How is this matter explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestantism?

The LDS Church believes in more than one God. This is brought out in my first two statements below. Yet the Book of Mormon contradicts these statements (see quotes below). From an official LDS page titled [Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity) > **Three distinct beings** > > The Church’s first Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe They are three distinct personages, not one singular being. We call Them the Godhead. By definition this would be considered "Polytheism." They further go on to say: > Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don't believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose. This statement, as well, is, by definition, "Polytheism." **How do Mormons reconcile the above 2 statements from the following quotes from the Book of Mormon?** [Alma 11:26-35](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/11?lang=eng) : >26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? > >27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. > >28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? > >29 And he answered, No. > >30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? > >31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me. > >32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? > >33 And he said unto him, Yea. > >34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people ain their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. > >35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. And [Alma 11:38-39](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/11?lang=eng) : > 38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? > > 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; Then there is [Ether 3:14](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/3?lang=eng) : > 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. So how is it that the BoM teaches that Jesus Christ is actually God the Father, and at the same time the Son? This in view of the opening statements? Also, how is it that Amulek says Jesus will not save people from their sins when the Bible clearly teaches Jesus Christ is our Savior? All of this contradicts the Bible big time! Are these examples of why Smith declared that the BoM is another testament of the Bible and the Bible needed restoring?

The following is an excerpt from pages 471 and 472 of [Mormon Doctrine](https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine1966/page/472/mode/2up) , by Bruce R. McConkie: >   1\. Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected. In this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality; it is the inseparable connection of body and spirit so that the resurrected personage lives forever. >   This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition. In their case, after their resurrection, "they shall return again to their own place" (D. & C. 88:32); after coming forth in immortality and standing before the judgment bar, because they are "filthy still, ... they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their tonnent is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end." (2 Ne. 9:13-16.) They are resurrected but they are not redeemed from the devil. "They shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption." (Alma 12:18.) Thus it is that the Lord "saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him." (D. & C. 76:40-48.) All others are saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment. (2 Ne. 9: 18-27.) >   But this is not the salvation of righteousness, the salvation which the saints seek. Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or a telestial kingdom. They will, therefore, be damned; their eternal progression will be cut short; they will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons. > >   2. Conditional or individual salvation, that which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience, consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God. This kind of salvation follows faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one's mortal probation. (D. & C. 20:29; 2 Ne. 9:23-24.) All others are damned, for as Amulek said: "How can ye be saved except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven?" Further: Christ "shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. Therefore the wicked remain as though (here had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day Cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works." (Alma 11:37-41.) >   Even those in the celestial kingdom, however, who do not go on to exaltation, will have immortality only and not eternal life. Along with those of the telestial and terrestrial worlds they will be "ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." They will live "separately and singly" in an unmarried state "without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity." (D. & C. 132:16-17.) > >   3. Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek. It is of this which the Lord says, "There is no gift greater than the gift of salvation." (D. & C. 6:13.) This full salvation is obtained in and through the continuation of the family unit in eternity, and those who obtain it are gods. (D. & C. 131:1-4; 132.) >   Full salvation is attained by virtue of knowledge, truth, righteousness, and all true principles. Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to men. Without the atonement, the gospel, the priesthood, and the sealing power, there would be no salvation. Without continuous revelation, the ministering of angels, the working of miracles, the prevalence of gifts of the spirit, there would be no salvation. **If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints**. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 1350.) I've highlighted the portion "*If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*" as it's the most likely to provoke disagreement from Christians outside the LDS faith, although this is my educated guess. From the perspective of Christians not affiliated with the LDS Church, are there any inconsistencies between the LDS concept of salvation and what the Bible teaches about salvation? In other words, are there specific doctrines about salvation taught by the Bible that we can be highly confident about (let's label them as X) and specific doctrines about salvation that the LDS Church is highly confident about (let's label them as Y), such that X and Y are mutually exclusive, meaning they cannot both be true simultaneously?

Can someone give a summary of how to read Romans 1-4 in "[Beyond Justification: Liberating Paul's Gospel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/205122128-beyond-justification) "? From a [podcast](https://wipfandstock.com/blog/2024/03/05/douglas-a-campbell-and-jon-depue-liberating-pauls-gospel-from-justification-theory/) , I got the idea that Paul actually starts with a Socratic argument, rather than plainly stating what he believes and how things work. I'm not sure if I properly understood it though. According to the authors of the book, Romans 1-4 is the basis for "Justification Theory", an Atonement Theory often in the form of Penal Substitution. But 90% of what Paul wrote, "the gospel" as laid out by Paul in the rest of his corpus, doesn't work like that, namely: your faith in Christ is a sign that you are elected and thus saved and equipped to do good works. Perhaps I got that part wrong too, feel free to correct me.

If God respects our free will and doesn't interfere in our decisions, why should we pray for things (petition)? For example, if I pray for my daily bread, God cannot force me to go to the store, buy bread, and bring it home. All these choices are decisions I must make freely. Or if I ask for a good grade on my exam, God cannot force me to study, or choose my answers. How can God help me without breaking my free will? Furthermore, He already knows the future and exactly what grade I will get (which is a part of His perfect plan), so why should I pray for a certain grade?

The "skeptic's prayer" was relatively recently brought to my attention by an [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/104847/66156) to [one](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/104798/66156) of my questions on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > More in the vein of Schellenberg's argument above, I hope that I am sufficiently nonresistant to allow for more personal, direct conversion by God. I have said the **"skeptic's prayer"** sincerely at many points in my life but have yet to cross over to true belief (vs just motivated hope). Different versions of the "skeptic's prayer" are available on several websites. Some examples I quickly found: > 'God, I don't know whether you even exist. I'm a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain (at least when I'm completely honest with myself). So, if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of truth, what-ever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me.' ([source](http://www.withoutexcusecreations.net/the-honest-skeptics-prayer/)) > Hello God. Honestly, I don’t know if you are real or if I am talking > to myself. People say this, others say that. I don’t know what to > think about you, if there is a you, and all those big questions > regarding life, the universe and everything. > > What can I know about you? How can I know you? Who is worthy of trust > in this world of confusion and betrayal? > > If you are there, If I am not just talking to myself, touch me for a > moment, so that I may find you, wherever you are, and whoever you may > be. > > Maybe if you will trust me a little, Give me a little mercy in my > confusion, I could learn to trust you too. It’s not always easy being > alive in this world. It would be nice to have some help. > > My question is simple. Am I talking to myself here? Or do you somehow, > somewhere exist? If in fact you exist, and are there for me, help me > find you. I don’t know what else to say about this. I do know that yes > or no, I want to know for myself. At least I think I do. In the > meantime, I’ll just wait and see what happens. One more thing. What > does this Jesus fellow have to do with this? > > Ok I’m done praying. What’s the word for the end of a prayer – Amen, > that’s what the church people say. Someone told me it means “so be > it.” I want this to be in my life, whatever this may turn out to be. > So I say Amen. > > We say "Amen" with you too. ([source](http://www.epiphanyokc.com/a-skeptics-prayer)) Is there scriptural support for God being willing to answer the prayers of an open-minded skeptic who sincerely seeks a divine response, hoping that it would confirm to their satisfaction that God is real, if that is indeed the case? And as a follow-up question, would a prayer like this work even in more extreme cases, such as the examples of non-believers referenced in my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99650/61679* ?

Without offending I'd like to sway another without having them totally shut me down I'm just looking for any suggestions

I've been hearing more and more of this concept that humans are vessels, either controlled by the spirit of the world (Satan) or the Holy Spirit (if saved) and that there is no "independent self". This is new to me. I don't think it's accurate, but I may not be fully understanding it. **Does this belief have a name or origin that I could read up on?**

In [Acts 1:12-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:12-26&version=NIVUK) we read the story of how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. This kept the number of apostles at Twelve. Sometime later, James, the brother of John was murdered ([Acts 12:2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2012:2&version=NIVUK)) . James was also one of the original twelve ([Matthew 4:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4:21&version=NIVUK)) but unlike Judas, there is no record of him being replaced. Why was this? Did the policy change? Alternatively, if he *was* replaced but it was not recorded in the New Testament, when did the "Twelve Apostle" policy end?

Below are the passages describing Resurrection Sunday from each of the Gospels. Matthew 28:1-9: "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.' So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, 'Greetings!' And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.'" Mark 16:1-8: "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, 'Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?' And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" Luke 24:1-7: "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, 'Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.'" But John describes Jesus himself appearing to Mary, following a footrace between John and Peter: John 20:11-18: "But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.' Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, 'Rabboni!' (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."' Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord'—and that he had said these things to he." So, to summarize, the Synoptics describe the Resurection as: Mary Magdalene and possibly His mother visit the grave. They see the stone rolled away, and an angel waiting for them. The angel asks her/them why she/they were looking for "the living among the dead". He then tells them to share the good news. In John's story: John and Peter look inside the grave and believe that Jesus was alive, then hide from the Jews in their house. Mary cried outside the grave, but when looking inside sees *two* angels, who ask her who shes looking for and why she's crying. SHe turns around, and sees who she assumes to be the gardener and ask if he has taken the body. Jesus then opens her eyes and reveals Himself directly to her, causing her to rejoice and *then* share the good news. What causes the discrepancy? Did John have a literary reason, did he talk to different witnesses or is there some other reason?

Why Moses? Why Elijah? Why not Enoch? I say this because Elijah was taken up into the heavens, same for Enoch, but it is mentioned in scripture that Moses clearly died What made the disciples think that it was, Moses and Elijah, that were with Jesus during his transfiguration if they had never seen Moses or Elijah before then? Is there more to it than an explanation such as divine revelation? I am recently reading the New testament vigilantly and this part really captivated me for some reason. I would appreciate a very detailed and holistic answer if possible.

How can time not exist before creation? For God to exist for infinite time before creation, there had to have been some kind of time or time-like object causing -infinity to turn into the time of creation. Wouldn't God have created time before time so there was still time before creation but it may have had different properties? Because eternity into the future is always described as infinite time in the future, but infinite time into the future can't actually happen technically and only approaching the infinite future can happen but never reaching it. So kind of like on a coordinate plane for e-x, where the coordinate plane tries to approach zero but it never actually is able to reach zero unless a value of infinity is placed in the value of x, which can't be shown on a coordinate plane. So is it kind of like the graph that I described in that eternity can never be reached and it doesn't exist at least in the future side, and eternity in the past does exist and has to exist? So does ever-increasing finite time give the illusion of eternity?